7 ms·

Threading doesn't compensate for that degree of slowdown, and itself has overhead. You'll get something back, but not much.

reitzensteinm 5y ago
In my experience you can usually achieve near linear speed up. My machine can run 24 threads.
- gnuvince 5y ago
  Could you share an example program that does that?
- MillenialMan 5y ago
  Fair enough on scaling. But 24 is still a lot less than two to three orders of magnitude.
  - reitzensteinm 5y ago
    Yes, it is. I'd probably ballpark Clojure at 100x slower than the kinds of low level C# I usually write (gamedev). But threading C#, especially low level imperative C#, is so awful I often don't bother unless it's very important or there's an embarrassingly parallel element (genetic algorithms and simulating sound waves on a 2D grid are two cases I've pulled the trigger where both were true). This leaves Clojure as 1/4 the overall speed, which seems about right. However that's based on a hugely unscientific gut feeling, because generally I don't touch Clojure if performance matters and I don't touch C# if it doesn't. By the way, I've implemented persistent data structures on disk for a problem they were particularly useful for. If stalling for a cache miss feels bad, try waiting for an SSD :)
    - gpderetta 5y ago
      Having to use 24 cores to get to 1/4th of the performance of a single threaded C# application seems particularly awful. Especially as C# is a relatively pleasant language to use. It doesn't matter how good threading in clojure is if you don't even need to use it to beat clojure on another language (also: great scaling is pointless if you start so far behind).
      - reitzensteinm 5y ago
        Yes, hammering in a nail with a screwdriver is particularly awful. I love using Clojure where it's appropriate, but I'm not in the least bit tempted to use it for game dev.
dgb23 5y ago
Again, generalisations about performance like that is just not very useful. There are use cases where you get significant benefits from using persistent data structures. Aeron comes to mind as an example in regards to high performance solutions that uses them. But a more fundamental reason is that immutability can be part of your domain logic. Think video games like braid, or business applications where you need to derive a lot of different views and go back and forth between them, or domains where data just is inherently immutable such as accounting and so on.
- MillenialMan 5y ago
  I don't really agree. Cache friendliness is almost always a relevant factor as soon as performance becomes an issue. I get what you're saying but as I see it immutability gives you architectural efficiency and in some cases space efficiency, but rarely processing speed. > Think video games like braid Braid doesn't use immutable data structures, it uses a historical record (and immutability would be incompatible with some of the mechanics).[1] The author of Braid is actually quite famous for his dislike of functional languages and immutability. He doesn't even like garbage collection because of the overhead it introduces. Interestingly, he was talking about data structures for codebase representation (in the context of a compiler) a while back, and someone mentioned HAMTs. I'm definitely curious if they would work well there. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8dinUbg2h70 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8dinUbg2h70
  - dgb23 5y ago
    You’re picking out an admittedly bad example in order to miss the point. Different data structures have different tradeoffs. Not every problem lends itself to the same type of optimization, so it’s not helpful to make these generalizations. Continuing with the example regardless, change records and persistent data structures have different performance characteristics. The former is going fast if you move incrementally between states, the latter enables arbitrary access, comparison and efficient in memory caching of multiple views. It would be interesting to explore and measure the trade offs under certain use cases.

reitzensteinm 5y ago

In my experience you can usually achieve near linear speed up. My machine can run 24 threads.

gnuvince 5y ago
Could you share an example program that does that?
MillenialMan 5y ago
Fair enough on scaling. But 24 is still a lot less than two to three orders of magnitude.
- reitzensteinm 5y ago
  Yes, it is. I'd probably ballpark Clojure at 100x slower than the kinds of low level C# I usually write (gamedev). But threading C#, especially low level imperative C#, is so awful I often don't bother unless it's very important or there's an embarrassingly parallel element (genetic algorithms and simulating sound waves on a 2D grid are two cases I've pulled the trigger where both were true). This leaves Clojure as 1/4 the overall speed, which seems about right. However that's based on a hugely unscientific gut feeling, because generally I don't touch Clojure if performance matters and I don't touch C# if it doesn't. By the way, I've implemented persistent data structures on disk for a problem they were particularly useful for. If stalling for a cache miss feels bad, try waiting for an SSD :)
  - gpderetta 5y ago
    Having to use 24 cores to get to 1/4th of the performance of a single threaded C# application seems particularly awful. Especially as C# is a relatively pleasant language to use. It doesn't matter how good threading in clojure is if you don't even need to use it to beat clojure on another language (also: great scaling is pointless if you start so far behind).
    - reitzensteinm 5y ago
      Yes, hammering in a nail with a screwdriver is particularly awful. I love using Clojure where it's appropriate, but I'm not in the least bit tempted to use it for game dev.

dgb23 5y ago

Again, generalisations about performance like that is just not very useful. There are use cases where you get significant benefits from using persistent data structures. Aeron comes to mind as an example in regards to high performance solutions that uses them. But a more fundamental reason is that immutability can be part of your domain logic. Think video games like braid, or business applications where you need to derive a lot of different views and go back and forth between them, or domains where data just is inherently immutable such as accounting and so on.

MillenialMan 5y ago
I don't really agree. Cache friendliness is almost always a relevant factor as soon as performance becomes an issue. I get what you're saying but as I see it immutability gives you architectural efficiency and in some cases space efficiency, but rarely processing speed. > Think video games like braid Braid doesn't use immutable data structures, it uses a historical record (and immutability would be incompatible with some of the mechanics).[1] The author of Braid is actually quite famous for his dislike of functional languages and immutability. He doesn't even like garbage collection because of the overhead it introduces. Interestingly, he was talking about data structures for codebase representation (in the context of a compiler) a while back, and someone mentioned HAMTs. I'm definitely curious if they would work well there. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8dinUbg2h70 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8dinUbg2h70
- dgb23 5y ago
  You’re picking out an admittedly bad example in order to miss the point. Different data structures have different tradeoffs. Not every problem lends itself to the same type of optimization, so it’s not helpful to make these generalizations. Continuing with the example regardless, change records and persistent data structures have different performance characteristics. The former is going fast if you move incrementally between states, the latter enables arbitrary access, comparison and efficient in memory caching of multiple views. It would be interesting to explore and measure the trade offs under certain use cases.